Africa News blog

Can’t do or won’t do? Ending Darfur’s kidnap business

Kidnapping foreign workers in Sudan for ransom has become a dangerous business in Darfur in the past year with 10 separate cases and at least 22 expatriate victims.

These are not the al Qaeda kidnaps of West Africa. The Darfuri criminals have so far demanded only money and have not killed any of their victims. Some have threatened to sell their captives to al Qaeda-linked groups if they do not get paid.

The abductions have restricted the operations of those aid and U.N. agencies still working in Darfur, with foreigners mostly relocated to the main towns and rarely travelling into the rural areas where people are most in need of help.

But the question always debated by Sudan watchers is: “Is it that Khartoum can’t protect foreign workers in Darfur or that it won’t?”

Many point to the timing as an indication — these abductions became a regular occurrence after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir in March 2009.

Others speculate that the government, which has long had a hostile attitude to the international humanitarian agencies in Darfur, does not want them to get out and report on the worsening situation in the rural areas.

Britain on Sudan: Selling out or cashing in?

Britain’s new coalition government made its priorities on Sudan very clear as Henry Bellingham, the minister for Africa, used 90 percent of his opening remarks at his first press conference in Khartoum to outline how Britain could increase trade with Sudan.

The other 10 percent dealing with the run-up to the south’s referendum on secession, which is likely to create Africa’s newest nation state, and the International Criminal Court arrest warrant for President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for genocide all seemed like just an afterthought.

At first glance many would say Britain was selling out — engaging economically with a government whose head is a wanted man would destroy the global divestment campaign’s years of efforts to make investing in Sudan a poisoned chalice and to pressure Khartoum to stop rights abuses and allow democratic freedoms.

Many Darfuris and rights activists who have been victims of torture and harassment will be dismayed by the move, which clearly extends a hand of friendship to Khartoum, virtually a pariah since the ICC warrant for Bashir last year.

Is Britain selling out?

In fact many ordinary Sudanese say no. They say U.S. sanctions since 1997 have had little effect on the government, which took control in a bloodless coup in 1989 and was elected in disputed elections in April this year.

The economy has grown on average eight percent a year, Khartoum extracted the oil found on its territiry pretty much without Western companies, built hundreds of miles of tarmac roads, and erected high-rise government buildings which sparkle nicely in the sun, visible from the heavily secured U.S. embassy compound.

One step forward, a few steps back

One of the few positives of Sudan’s elections, dubbed to be the first open vote in 24 years but marred by opposition boycotts and accusations of fraud, was a tiny opening of democratic freedom in Africa’s largest country.

Direct press censorship was lifted from Sudan’s papers and opposition politicians were given an albeit limited platform to address the population through state media.

Still, it seemed for the biggest international observer missions, such as the Carter Center and the European Union, the best they could say about the elections was 1): That they happened and 2): That people were not killing each other for once in this nation devastated by decades of multiple civil wars. (At least not because of the vote anyway).

They all agreed that the crack of democracy opened during the polls must be allowed to continue. And more progressive members of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s ruling party agreed. Presidential Adviser Ghazi Salaheddin told me he did not think they could go back on the democratic gains.

But it seems just one month after the vote, Sudan is sliding back to its old ways.

In Darfur, where Bashir is accused by the International Criminal Court of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the Sudanese army took control of West Darfur’s Jabel Moun – which has been a key rebel stronghold pretty much since the conflict began in 2003.

It’s an impressive range of hills making it an ideal base to defend against attack. It’s also an area where the U.N.-African Union peacekeeping mission (UNAMID) has enjoyed little access because of almost constant military clashes and bombing.

Bashir’s magic number 68

On the face of it, Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir got the perfect election result.

His victory with 68 percent was not too high that it would spark concerns of fraud but high enough above the 50 percent needed for a win for him to be able fly in the face of the disapproving West.

Bashir is now the only elected sitting head of state wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.    

But the path to victory was far from smooth.

Three weeks before what was promising to be an exciting electoral race, irregularities including a government printing press winning the contract to print ballot papers, sparked a wave of boycotts effectively ending any hope of a competitive presidential poll.

But given the late notice all the candidates’ names remained on the ballot papers. So despite opposition leaders urging their supporters not to go to vote — if they wanted to, they could in theory still vote for their man (or woman).

Delays prompted the National Elections Commission to abandon the computerised results system and move to a manual paper trail, allowing the results to come flooding in but leaving the door open to error or even possible manipulation.

To observe or not to observe?

This is likely to be the question hotly debated in the more self-aware international observer missions covering Sudan’s elections, due to start on Sunday and marred by a wave of boycotts and claims of fraud.

Sudan’s first multi-party polls in almost quarter of a century had promised to be fiercely contested until revelations of irregularities caused boycotts by several parties.

The two largest parties and incumbent President Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s only real two contenders both withdrew, saying the ruling party had fixed the polls.

As evidence of fraud continued to emerge, the use of government presses to print presidential and gubernatorial ballot papers, and voter registration books was the final straw. The boycotts have raised serious questions about the credibility of the presidential polls especially.

Bashir, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, had hoped to win legitimately, in defiance of the warrant.

This week Sudanese civil society groups asked the international observer missions from the Arab League, African Union, China, Japan and the European Union among others to leave, saying they served only to legitimize a flawed election.

They all arrived in time to observe the voting and counting, while the Sudanese activists said the major fraud began with a flawed 2008 census, demarcating the constituencies followed by the voter registration last year. 

Washington and Sudan’s elections: When interests collide

The talk of the town for Sudanese is the position of Washington’s envoy Scott Gration after he met the National Elections Commission, the body accused of irregularities and bias towards the ruling National Congress Party.     “They have given me a lot of information that gives me confidence that the elections will start on time and that they will be as free and fair as possible,” Gration told reporters.

“This has been a difficult challenge but I believe they (the NEC) have stepped up and met the challenge,” he added.

Gration refused to answer a question on his opinion of the accusations of fraud and bias against the NEC, presiding over the polls to begin next week.

These include the NEC imposing restrictions on political party meetings, pre-recording and censoring political party broadcasts, intervening in the U.N. tender process to allow the government printing press to print the presidential and gubernatorial ballots and a later revelation they allowed the same press to print the voter registration books and slips.

The last contract was paid for with international donor money. Washington is the main bilateral donor to the presidential, legislative and gubernatorial polls, offering some $95 million.

The NEC has not published its finances so no one knows how much the elections will cost. But international sources estimate between $300 to $400 million.

Gration arrived after the shock decision by the main south Sudan party to withdraw its presidential candidate last week, citing massive fraud and sparking a wave of withdrawals which threatened the credibility of the polls.

A new dawn for Sudanese press freedom?

Hosting a rare debate between Sudan’s much-maligned National Elections Commission (NEC) and opposition parties, the privately owned Blue Nile television was taking a risk broadcasting live to the nation.

In a country where, ahead of April’s first multi-party elections in 24 years, party political broadcasts are pre-recorded and censored, the evening promised to be fun.

As the NEC sat on stage in a hall full of opposition politicians, most of whom accuse the NEC of bias towards the ruling National Congress Party, the panel began a long explanation of the history of the elections and the preceding census.   After 15 minutes, nerves began to fray.    Even the five-second delay in transmission was not enough to cover up a walk-out sparked by the last democratically elected Prime Minister’s daughter, Mariam al-Mahdi, as it became clear the “debate” was more of a lecture.

After semi-whispered discussions, the other main opposition parties followed her lead, leaving a lonely few government employees, independent candidates and other stragglers to fill up the empty seats up front.

The “debate” was somewhat derailed by the walk-out and the raised voices outside the hall as organisers frantically tried to rescue the programme.

“They are not serious,” al-Mahdi, from the opposition Umma Party, complained as she stormed out of the building.

Sudan’s elections brinkmanship – can the opposition unite?

In a shock unilateral announcement, the leading south Sudanese party, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), withdrew its presidential candidate, Yasir Arman, and said it would also boycott elections on all levels in  Darfur.

It paved the way for incumbent President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to win the April 11-18 polls. Arman was viewed as his main challenger, with much of south Sudan’s support – about 25 percent of the 16-million strong electorate.

Some in the opposition initially reacted with anger or surprise, because the SPLM had agreed to form a joint position on a likely full boycott of elections in the north with them a day later. But as the decision sank in, the realization is that the ball is now firmly in their court.

The credibility of the elections is hanging in the balance.

But the big question on everyone’s lips is: Will the opposition be able to unite on a joint position ahead of the polls, which are due to begin in just 10 days?

Many Sudanese complain the weak and divided opposition offer little alternative to Bashir’s party.

Searching for reasons to be cheerful in Sudan

Only the most foolhardy commentator would dare to say anything optimistic about the coming year in Sudan, four months away from highly charged elections and 12 months from an explosive referendum on southern independence.

So here goes — five reasons why Africa’s largest country might just manage to reach January 2011 without a return to catastrophe and bloody civil war, despite the worst predictions of most pundits.

Oil Often the cause of conflict, oil could end up helping to prevent it in Sudan. The country’s oil industry, as it currently stands, only works when north and south Sudan work together. The south has most of the known oil reserves while the north has all of the infrastructure — from pipelines to refineries to a sea port. Talk of a southern refinery and an alternative pipeline route to the sea via Kenya are currently “pie in the sky”, one diplomat told me.Both sides may choose to fight it out over contested border oilfields after the widely expected “yes” vote for southern independence, thereby disrupting oil flows and scaring off investors. But it would be much more profitable for all concerned to work out a revenue sharing scheme and live side by side as business partners. The south’s government gets up to 98 percent of its revenues from oil sales so would struggle to survive without some kind of deal. 

Talks and process The scariest times since north and south Sudan ended their last civil war with a 2005 peace deal have come when northern and southern leaders stopped talking to each other.Since a breakthrough in negotiations over key legislation late last year, officials from both sides are currently holding almost daily face-to-face meetings. Many of those meetings are focusing on preparing for the elections and referendum.

Low expectations The International Crisis Group issued a downbeat report saying both the north’s dominant National Congress Party (NCP) and the south’s Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) were interested in the elections “for the wrong reasons”.The NCP wanted to establish its political legitimacy, to counter the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against its leader President Omar Hassan al-Bashir over war crimes in Darfur, it said. And the SPLM wanted to tick off the election to get through to the next stage in the peace process, the prized referendum.But those limited aspirations might not be such a bad thing, if you are more interested in Sudan getting through its elections peacefully then having a technically perfect poll. If the NCP and the SPLM get what they want, they might have the clout to push Sudan through its tricky election period, steamrollering over already-mounting opposition complaints of vote fraud.

External pressure External players in Sudan — among them China, Middle Eastern investors, and the United States — will use what influence they have to press for stability, for a mixture of humanitarian and commercial reasons.The 1983-2005 north-south civil war festered for so long partly because the rest of the world ignored it for so long. This time, thanks to other factors like the separate Darfur conflict, the world is watching Sudan closely.

War fatigue The biggest hope for peace is that both sides will remember the cost of the last civil war — an estimated 2 million killed, 4 million forced to flee — and decide that nothing is worth a return to that level of bloodshed.

from Global News Journal:

Darfur: Is the war over or is the world losing interest?

It's more than six years since mostly non-Arab rebels in Sudan's western Darfur region revolted after accusing Khartoum of neglecting their remote corner of Africa's biggest country. Khartoum's U.N. ambassador, Abdalmahmoud Abdalhaleem, declared in New York this week that the "war in Darfur is over."

But Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, disagrees. Although levels of violence in Darfur have fallen, he told the Security Council that crimes "are continuing." He said those crimes include indiscriminate bombings of civilians, creation of inhumane conditions for displaced people in order to "exterminate" them, rapes and sexual violence, and the use of child soldiers. The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, another government official and a former Janjaweed militia leader for war crimes in a government-led counter-insurgency campaign that drove more than 2 million from their homes. The United Nations says as many as 300,000 people have died since the conflict erupted in 2003, but Khartoum rejects that figure.

The ICC has also charged three rebels in connection with an attack on African Union peacekeepers in 2007. One rebel showed up in The Hague to defend himself but Bashir and the others remain at large. Western diplomats say Bashir's arrest is not a top priority now since it could destroy the stalled Darfur peace process. Khartoum refuses to cooperate with the ICC and its chief prosecutor, whom Abdalhaleem branded a "mercenary of death and destruction." (Moreno-Ocampo countered by declaring that Sudanese officials who deny that crimes were committed in Darfur could themselves face prosecution.) U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in his latest report to the Security Council that U.N./African Union peacekeepers in Darfur were being harassed and threatened by Sudanese government forces and rebels. (As if to illustrate the point, two Rwandan peacekeepers were shot dead in an ambush in North Darfur on Friday.) Ban said that civilians in Darfur remain at risk of violence as the Sudanese military continues to clash with rebel groups. The world body has also warned that the population of Darfur may be left out of next year's nationwide elections, the first in 24 years, due to mass displacement of the population and volatile security.

But Khartoum and the rebels determined to topple Bashir's government may not be the only problem. The former head of a U.N. panel charged with investigating violations of a 2005 arms embargo for Darfur accused the United States and other members of the Security Council of "selling out" the Darfur sanctions.

"Many member states of the U.N. Security Council that ... imposed coercive measures on those responsible for the violence in Darfur now seem unwilling to fight back against those who let the abuses continue," Enrico Carisch, a Swiss finance expert and former head of the U.N. Panel of Experts on Sudan, said in testimony to the U.S. House of Representative sub-committee on Africa and global health.

"Increasingly, it looks like poorly understood and under-enforced U.N. sanctions are being sold out in favor of mediation whose success is far from ensured," said Carisch, who stepped down as chairman of the panel in October.

Carisch implied that the record of U.S. President Barack Obama's administration on Darfur was worse its precessor's. "In contrast to that leadership of 2004 and 2005, the United States appears to have now joined the group of influential states who sit by quietly and do nothing to ensure that sanctions work to protect Darfurians," Carisch said.